Re: Name of config file looks ambiguous to GRUB newbies

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:47:15PM +0200, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:46:48PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:11:07PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> > > I'm a zealot. To me the correct one would be ...../etc/grub.conf
> > > And everyone with a Unix-brain will understand.
> > 
> > And everyone with a brain will understand that if /etc is on a
> > partition not accessible by grub and /boot is a seperate partition
> > which is accessible it just won't work.  And then I'm not even talking
> > about situations in which people want to change the grub config from
> > within different OSes which don't support every filesystem etc.
> 
> You don't have to be so harsh. The intention was that /boot became in
> recent years a mess, and maybe it's time to put into it some Unix-
> traditional order. E.g.
> /boot/etc/grub.conf
> /boot/lib/grub/*stage* (or even /boot/lib/grub-$version/...)

I don't see a mess. In /boot/grub is only menu.lst, device.map and a
few stage files. There is certainly no need to make a full un*x
directory layout for /boot.

> There will of course be backwards-compatibility problems - you can't
> easily move /boot/System.map-$version, probably other such things as
> well.
> 
> I also find it weird that at least RedHat writes /boot/kernel.h
> every boot. Shouldn't it be somewhere under /var?

Both things aren't GRUB issues.
 
> The FHS says quite little about /boot. In particular, it says:
> "Configuration files for boot loaders should be placed in /etc."

I don't like the FHS, but it actually talks about bootloaders and even
about GRUB and says that its config should be under /boot.

> That's, of course, was written for the lilo days, the FS-agnostic
> boot-loader days. Maybe it's time for an update.

GRUB exists since 1995.

-- 
Jeroen Dekkers